£130m legal victory for jobless who refused work experience
JOBSEEKERS who refused to undertake work experience could receive £ 130million compensation from the taxpayer, following a controversial court ruling yesterday. The high Court found that a Government crackdown had breached the human rights of thousands of unemployed people who had benefits docked for refusing to take part in a compulsory work experience scheme.
Welfare minister Lord Freud told the court that paying compensation would result i n an ‘ undeserved windfall’ for thousands.
But the presiding judge Mrs Justice Lang said those affected were ‘merely receiving their legal entitlement’. The Department f or Work and Pensions lodged an immediate appeal against the ruling. a spokesman said ministers would not pay a penny in
‘Complete waste of my time’
compensation until the legal process is exhausted. The ruling is a blow to Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who condemned a previous court ruling on the issue as ‘utter madness’.
It results from the case of jobless geology graduate Cait Reilly, who complained she had been subjected to ‘forced labour’ after being told she risked losing her Jobseeker’s allowance if she refused to carry out work experience at a Poundland store in November 2011.
Miss Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, claimed that the experience was a ‘complete waste of my time’.
Ironically, she then went on to get a job with supermarket Morrisons after completing her work experience stint with its budget rival.
Yesterday’s ruling was also a victory for 40-year- old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, who objected to doing unpaid work cleaning furniture and as a result was stripped of his Jobseeker’s allowance for six months.
The appeal Court ruled last year that the back-to-work scheme was legally flawed, partly because it failed to spell out the consequences for those who refused to take part.
Mr Duncan Smith i ntroduced emergency legislation to correct the flaws in the scheme. Ministers also introduced retrospective regulations to prevent compensation claims from those who had earlier seen their benefits docked.
Miss Reilly argued that the retrospective move was a ‘cynical’ ploy.
Mrs Justice Lang yesterday ruled that this retrospective element breached Labour’s human Rights act and said compensation should be paid. The judge said that although Parliament is free to bring in any law it likes, the human Rights act ‘confers upon the courts a new power to declare that legislation is incompatible with the european Convention on human Rights’.
Tory MP Charlie elphicke said: ‘This is a ridiculous judgment which completely i gnores l egislation approved by Parliament. Yet again the courts are using the european human Rights rules to make strange and damaging judgments. This only strengthens the case for human rights reform and a British Bill of Rights.’
Miss Reilly’s lawyer Phil Shiner described the DWP’s tactics as ‘a further disgraceful example of how far this Government is prepared to go to flout our constitution and the rule of law’. he added: ‘This case is another massive blow to this Government’s flawed and tawdry attempts to make poor people on benefits work for companies, who already make massive profits, for free.’
a DWP spokesman said that ministers are ‘pleased’ the court confirmed the Government’s right to dock benefits from those who refused to take part in back-to-work schemes.
But he added: ‘We disagree with the judgment on the legislation and are disappointed. It was discussed, voted on and passed by Parliament.’